DE Task Force Meeting with Dr. June LeDrew Online (1 year)/Televised (5 years) Instructor June 16, 2009 Note Taker: Willadell Garreck
June discussed the technology she incorporates into her classes: Televised Telephone
PPT
Audiobridge
(Also has a face-to-face lab)
Online Audioclips
Video
Links
(Also has online labs)
She stressed that her objective is to use manageable technology.
As an opening statement, June recognizes that there is a need for U of R outreach to rural Saskatchewan communities. The U of R needs to recruit and deliver to students outside of the bedroom communities of Regina. What works well in distance delivery for June? She likes partnering with the Distance Learning Division (DLD).
She also stressed that there were not many glitches in either televised or online because of the DLD staff ensure all goes well.
June has no concerns regarding infrastructure. She views the support she has received as great.
June views the administrative assistance that she receives from Distance Learning Division as essential. She describes DLD as the first domino in a series of dominoes; without DLD work would not happen. She stresses that faculty members cannot develop distance courses on their own; they need to be part of the team that DLD/CAT puts together for this purpose. What could work better? How could things change? June is concerned what will happen when the soft funding provided by the provincial government dries up.
She would like to see the U of R focus on niche markets, of which KHS is one.
June would like recognition for the alternate format courses she deliveries. She suggests that the process needs to value teaching more – so more money must go into developing teaching.
June suggests that there be an online development sabbatical. For instance, an instructor could have 6 months to work solely on the development of an online course, in a similar fashion that faculty are given time/merit for research s/he does. If this happened, there would be more tenured faculty interested in developing online courses.
Value of development of online/televised courses needs to be recognized.
Securing a TEL grant is not recognized as funds coming into the University. It should be seen in the same light that research money is, and faculty should be recognized for this.
There is a different mindset amongst senior administration when it comes to faculty review and distance delivery. This needs to change.
Currently instructors using technology are remunerated at 1.5 the norm. If this drops, June thinks only sessional instructors will develop/deliver courses. She views the added remuneration as an incentive, whether it is used to buy time or goes to the instructor for the added work. She also stresses the amount of work that distance delivery, especially online course development, requires. The initial learning curve is huge. She would also like to see release time for faculty.
She also addressed hesitancy around online course development with regards to intellectual property. She feels that writing a course is similar to writing a textbook and tenured faculty need to own their work online, just as they would own the content in a published textbook.
Revision money is a must. June suggests that a pool of money be set aside for this. Face-to-face courses are not allowed to stagnate, so off campus courses cannot be allowed to, either. Face-to-face, instructors can make their updates themselves, but distance delivered courses require assistance, which requires money.
June suggests that at the graduate level, the U of R could offer intensive courses, whereby students could study/prepare online, come to Regina for a defined, shortened period of time, and complete a course.
Overall, June likes working in distance delivery and finds it very satisfying.
Online (1 year)/Televised (5 years) Instructor
June 16, 2009
Note Taker: Willadell Garreck
June discussed the technology she incorporates into her classes:
Televised
Telephone
PPT
Audiobridge
(Also has a face-to-face lab)
Online
Audioclips
Video
Links
(Also has online labs)
She stressed that her objective is to use manageable technology.
As an opening statement, June recognizes that there is a need for U of R outreach to rural Saskatchewan communities. The U of R needs to recruit and deliver to students outside of the bedroom communities of Regina.
What works well in distance delivery for June?
She likes partnering with the Distance Learning Division (DLD).
She also stressed that there were not many glitches in either televised or online because of the DLD staff ensure all goes well.
June has no concerns regarding infrastructure. She views the support she has received as great.
June views the administrative assistance that she receives from Distance Learning Division as essential. She describes DLD as the first domino in a series of dominoes; without DLD work would not happen. She stresses that faculty members cannot develop distance courses on their own; they need to be part of the team that DLD/CAT puts together for this purpose.
What could work better? How could things change?
June is concerned what will happen when the soft funding provided by the provincial government dries up.
She would like to see the U of R focus on niche markets, of which KHS is one.
June would like recognition for the alternate format courses she deliveries. She suggests that the process needs to value teaching more – so more money must go into developing teaching.
June suggests that there be an online development sabbatical. For instance, an instructor could have 6 months to work solely on the development of an online course, in a similar fashion that faculty are given time/merit for research s/he does. If this happened, there would be more tenured faculty interested in developing online courses.
Value of development of online/televised courses needs to be recognized.
Securing a TEL grant is not recognized as funds coming into the University. It should be seen in the same light that research money is, and faculty should be recognized for this.
There is a different mindset amongst senior administration when it comes to faculty review and distance delivery. This needs to change.
Currently instructors using technology are remunerated at 1.5 the norm. If this drops, June thinks only sessional instructors will develop/deliver courses. She views the added remuneration as an incentive, whether it is used to buy time or goes to the instructor for the added work. She also stresses the amount of work that distance delivery, especially online course development, requires. The initial learning curve is huge. She would also like to see release time for faculty.
She also addressed hesitancy around online course development with regards to intellectual property. She feels that writing a course is similar to writing a textbook and tenured faculty need to own their work online, just as they would own the content in a published textbook.
Revision money is a must. June suggests that a pool of money be set aside for this. Face-to-face courses are not allowed to stagnate, so off campus courses cannot be allowed to, either. Face-to-face, instructors can make their updates themselves, but distance delivered courses require assistance, which requires money.
June suggests that at the graduate level, the U of R could offer intensive courses, whereby students could study/prepare online, come to Regina for a defined, shortened period of time, and complete a course.
Overall, June likes working in distance delivery and finds it very satisfying.